Difference between revisions of "The Elasticity of Demand With Respect to Product Failures; or Why the Market for Quack Medicines Flourished for More Than 150 Years"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
[[Category: Science Denialists]] | [[Category: Science Denialists]] | ||
<!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old URL and 1 End URL.--> | <!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old URL and 1 End URL.--> | ||
| − | {{URL | url = | + | {{URL | url = https://www.nber.org/papers/w15699.pdf}} |
<!-- {{Other URL | url = }} --> | <!-- {{Other URL | url = }} --> | ||
<!-- {{Old URL | url = }} --> | <!-- {{Old URL | url = }} --> | ||
| + | {{Old URL | url = http://cid.bcrp.gob.pe/biblio/Papers/NBER/2010/enero/w15699.pdf}} | ||
{{End URL}} | {{End URL}} | ||
{{DES | des = Markets did not punish the quack medicine industry due to unusually low elasticity of demand with respect to product failure and bounded rationality. The conclusion mentions that recent resaerch shows the FDA increased consumer welfare. | show=}} | {{DES | des = Markets did not punish the quack medicine industry due to unusually low elasticity of demand with respect to product failure and bounded rationality. The conclusion mentions that recent resaerch shows the FDA increased consumer welfare. | show=}} | ||
